69 A.D.: The Year of Four Emperors

by Gwyn Morgan

The Year of Four Emperors, so the ancient sources assure us, was one of the most chaotic, violent, and frightening periods in all Roman history. It was a time of assassinations and civil war, of armies so out of control that they had no qualms about occupying the city of Rome, and of ambitious men who ruthlessly seized power only to have it wrenched from their grasps.
In 69 AD , Gwyn Morgan offers a fresh look at this period, based on two considerations to which insufficient attention has been paid in the past. First, that we need to unravel rather than cherry-pick between the conflicting accounts of Tacitus, Plutarch and Suetonius, our three main sources of information. And second, that the role of the armies, as distinct from that of their commanders, has too often been exaggerated. The result is a remarkably accurate and insightful narrative history, filled with colorful portraits of the leading participants and new insights into the nature of the Roman military.
A strikingly vivid account of ancient Rome, 69 AD is an original and compelling account of one of the best known but perhaps least understood periods in all Roman history. It will engage and enlighten all readers with a love for the tumultuous soap opera that was Roman political life.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Roman History, Ancient, Military Fiction, Roman

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book might well have been better subtitled "The Year of Five Authors"...because that's what the author's primarily interested in. This book is incredibly dry. And this comes from someone who haunted obscure sections of his university library in enthusiastic pursuit of very dry books.

We lose the forest for the trees, as every incident of the year is checked and cross-checked against each of the five major classical authors to see where they agree and where they diverge. Which, while interesting, is a whole sub-point that tends to obscure the larger issues of what's happening. And after a while, I just wanted it to be done. To be told a straight-up story about what the author thinks the most likely occurrence was for a given battle, say, without needing to rehash every tiny quibble of difference between Tacitus and Cassius Dio.

I checked it out of the library because it was short, mistakenly equivalencing short with readable. It's the former, but only barely the latter. Of use only to people pursuing a degree in classical studies, and almost unreachable to the layperson.

[Peter Welch · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic work on the notorious "year of four emperors". Gripping from the start and well worth a read if your are interested in finding out what occurred in that chaotic year within the Roman empire. This is the first book on Roman history where I feel that I get a more complete understanding of the Emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius. There are obviously a multitude of works on Vespasian so this detail on the otherwise "over looked" Emperors is most welcome.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is very argumentative regarding both his sources and other opinions that are never clearly explained. All this made the book drag. The maps could have been better also. While there is interesting information in this book it was hard to sort out. I would only recommend this book to scholars.

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent history book that ranges over the suicide of nutter Nero in June 68 to the eventual declaration of country bumpkin Vespasian as emperor in December 69. As Tacitus states, not it seems over dramatically, the year that opened with the consulship of Galba and Titus Vinius truly was very nearly the last year of Rome's existence. If this wasn't the mother of all civil wars then it must have been very closely related.
The turmoil that convulsed one end of the empire, all the way to the other, began when Galba was declared emperor, only for Otho to stab him in the back with a coup six months later. Otho then committed suicide after losing the battle of Bedriacum against Vittellius' Germanic legions, ending his three month reign. Only for Vittelius to last just six months before being toppled by Flavian forces. (All this while the man himself sat with his feet up in Alexandria.)
Gwynn Morgan is Professor of Classics and History. 69A.D. was published in 2006. The author has a profound and clear understanding of his sources, mainly Tacitus but also including Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Plutarch and Josephus. As well as unknown sources, perhaps including one Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, Aufidius Bassus and Vipstanus Messalla, a serving military tribune with legion VII Claudia in 69. The book also contains an excellent appendix covering all the principal sources, as well as a very informative list of all the operational legions involved in the turmoil.
69A.D. clearly caused reverberations all around the Roman world. Perhaps resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus' forces in 70. It also effected the tribal allegiances in Britain, after their subjugation, post Boudicca. As well as many minor eruptions of piracy and rebellion around the Empire.

[Gavin O'Brien · Rating 3 out of 5]

The year of the four emperors is, as a historical event, confusing for many interested in early Roman imperial history. However Gwyn Morgan successfully captures the events of Imperial Romes first civil war in vivid detail, drawing together all the sources for the period, analyzing them thoroughly and providing a sound argument for the course of events.

First and foremost this work is very much just a linear narrative of events of the year, a compilation of the sources based on whom the author feels was providing the most accurate account of the events which followed, as opposed to a major critical analysis of the 'whose and whys' of the civil war. But this is not a negative factor, rather it allows readers to easily understand the events as they are perceived to have occurred, setting the reader up for further more critical works should they choose.

Though Morgan might not have added anything majorly new to the study of the topic, the work is refreshing, easy to follow, and very engaging, perfect for a coffee shop, bus/train/car journey and as a work for accademic reference.

Overall I would gladly recommend this book to anyone interested in the year of the four emperors.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dense and academic study of the tumultuous period immediately following the death of Nero in 68 AD. Morgan's style is dry, even for scholarly writing, but his command of the ancient sources is excellent. Morgan is a Tacitus expert, though he also parses through the relevant passages from Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio.

This book is by no means an easy read, and not suited to Armchair Historians looking for an exciting narrative of armed uprisings. Much of the excitement has been drained from these events. What this work does really well, though, is illustrate 1) how limited our sources of information are for ancient history, even from a relatively well-documented era and culture 2) the task of making comparisons among conflicting sources to create a "probable" narrative. I'd recommend that any reader have at least some familiarity with Tacitus and the others mentioned above, but even without this under your belt, you'll learn quite a bit about the job of the ancient historian, as well as a fascinating period of Roman history.

[ERIC PECHINOT · Rating 4 out of 5]

The political turmoil that shook Rome in the aftermath of Nero's suicide was sparked by a sudden realization: why in the gods'name should the State be the exclusive belonging of the friends and family of Augustus's, the founder of this peculiar regime we improperly call the Empire?
No need to beat about the bush: you will find it very hard to come across any better book on the matter than this glowing one. G. Morgan unfolds the long string of events without any waffling and with such mastery that not only does his narrative always stick to the historical facts, his gift as a writer also makes reading even more enjoyable.

[Jared Arney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good. Academic. This is a book for people familiar with the era, so Morgan assumes the reader has a baseline to work with. It can be rigorous. Things are presented in largely chronological order but there’s just so much going on that things get muddled (a situation worsened by Roman naming conventions, though Morgan does his best to differentiate). Still, at times it can feel more like the internal monologue of someone so wholly obsessed with the time period that it’s nearly consumed them. A bit of thinly veiled animosity towards his academic rivals is felt when he dredges up an old argument or contention, gesturing at other historians with “some think” or “it’s often held that” before dismissing them in a few sentences. And so the book can sometimes feel like a 200-odd page textual record of a rather myopic battle between old men (and women) of letters. Still, the scholarship is good. It’s not particularly difficult to understand everything if you take your time; and I won’t be the one to ask for a simplification of history.

However, I take issue with two rather small parts of the book. The first is that Morgan states during the planning of Caecina and Valens’ maneuvers in the opening of the Vitellian offensive that “strategy hadn’t been invented yet”. I thought this was a joke, maybe a humorous reference to an outdated thought, but it’s taken seriously. The second is that Morgan seemingly contradicts himself with regard to Paulinus and the German Legions. He says that one of Paulinus’ arguments for delaying the battle of Bedriacum is that the German Legions, acclimated to the cold Rhine frontier, will be at a disadvantage in the hot summers of Italy. Morgan dismisses this claim, but only a few months later details how the German Legionaries billeted in Rome suffered in the heat and died running to the Tiber! The former I can understand. Strategy as we know today may not have been “invented”, but the Romans certainly understood the macro scale of warfare beyond the tactical. They invented the term campaign, itself a strategic undertaking, and their military history is full of strategic decisions, even if they lacked the word. (Which, I believe, is sourced from the Greek word for commander “Strategos”.) The latter issue does undermine my confidence in his arguments a bit. Paulinus was evidently correct. Morgan doesn’t seem to acknowledge this at all. For these two reasons, I’ve deducted a single star.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not what I expected. More focus on the military history of this year than I expected. Very dense prose (unexpected for a relatively short book) and confusing writing. Several times his syntax seemed to contradict itself, left me scratching my head and trying to figure out exactly what he meant.

Still a decent read. Love the analysis of Roman historiography and it helped me to think about the literary aspects of Roman historians and the choices that they made in their writing. When it wasn't confusing, there were really clever pithy passages from Morgan's writing (and his Tacitus quotations) that made me laugh out loud.

[Karen]

When asked about suggestions on historical reads by Alex Lawson.

"Another book I really enjoyed was 69 A.D.: The Year of the Four Emperors, just because it is the history of the most massive clusterfuck in Roman history. Both books are a bit academic. 69 A.D. is particularly a slog because it is difficult to keep everyone sorted. Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian were all Emperors, and there is a cast of characters that is continually switching sides, so it is hard to keep track of who is where doing what." ~ Will O'Neill

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has great moments but is largely uninteresting to me. I think however if I were a military buff this would be more engaging. I do love his reliance on Tacitus as a source. He treats him fairly and while he often agrees with him he certainly questions him frequently as well.

[Todd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good. Very specialized and covers a very small period of Roman history - a year and a bit. The author knows his stuff. Specifically Tacitus and uses this knowledge to great effect. If you are not interested in Roman history, I would skip this one.

[Trudy Monk · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very wordy, and confusing when you arent a history buff, or understand olden language.

[Brady Nelson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just not an enjoyable read at all.

[Emily · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is no works cited. There are not pictures of statues, coins, archaeological sites etc. There are 4 maps.

Nearly all ancient sources are inadequately cited, and secondary literature is barely addressed. It is simply a harmony of the ancient sources on the year 69 CE with minimal commentary. At many points the narrative is convoluted & confusing.

This was a waste of my time.

I'm embarrassed for OUP. None of my advisors would accept this type of writing for coursework, let alone my dissertation.

[Jeff Lanter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having only read Suetonius on this brief period of Roman history, I really found Four Emperors to be an educational and enjoyable read. This is a scholarly book that essentially follows and interprets events in Roman History based off of the Roman and Greek writers with some scholarly articles and books thrown in. That means this book is not overly friendly to more casual readers and it would highly benefit a reader to have read Tacitus, Suetonius, or Plutarch before picking this one up.

Gwyn Morgan does a nice job of interpreting the events and describing them in a very detailed and logical manner. I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of his arguments because they were well-supported. One of the strengths of this book is how the author makes sense out of emperors that are difficult to understand/figure out even when you read Tacitus or Plutarch. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are presented with huge weaknesses in these sources and this book does a nice job of giving us a sense of their character and motivations. This book also has some information on Vespasian too who can also be somewhat tricky to see in an honest light because of the propaganda around him. Best of all, this one year in Roman History was full of infighting, blunders, and interesting people.

Almost every time I picked this book up, I never wanted to stop reading it. The only weakness I noticed was that the prose could be a little unwieldy. This highlights the challenge of bouncing between multiple stories and a large cast of characters more than a flaw with the writer. This is one of the big reasons why having some knowledge of the emperors helps you follow the generals who are also very important. Finally, don't let the ugly cover keep you away from this book. Just because it doesn't capture the likeness of these rulers the way a coin would, doesn't mean they aren't interesting and unique. This is a fascinating period of Roman history and anybody with an interest in the subject will more than likely enjoy this book.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Morgan does a thorough job of recapping the events in the pivotal year of 69 AD as a series of usurpers vie for control of the Roman Empire in the wake of Nero's suicide and the fall of the Julian Claudian Dynasty. It was interesting to learn more about a year that tends to get glossed over by historians. My only criticism is that the book at times tends to get bogged down repeatedly in the minutia of the various minor skirmishes between the different opposing forces. I suppose that can't be avoided in a book about a year that was plagued by a series of civil wars, but for me it made it difficult to get through at times. I also wish more attention could have been given to stressing what thoughts, if any, that the Emperors Galba, Otho, and finally Vitellius may have had about Vespasian, who at the time was sitting in Syria, a respected general in command of several battle tested legions. It would have been nice to know what the 3 usurpers thought about him as he was surely a threat to them (as history attests to, since you know ... he ultimately emerged the victor and all). One would think more attention would have been spent on his actions during the early part of that year. All in all though, not a bad read on an otherwise obscure period of Roman history.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

True rating: 4.5 stars.

Excellent and very well-written and presented analysis of the fateful and blood-soaked year of four emperors in ancient Rome. I had read Tacitus’ Histories prior to this, and that proved to be a good thing. Morgan uses every extant account, but primarily Tacitus’ (arguably the most reliable), to bring to life the personalities, decisions, and political turmoil that tore apart the Roman empire. Or did it? That’s one of the interesting points that Morgan makes in his conclusion. Despite all the civil warring that went on, the loss of so many innocent lives, the treachery of generals and legions, and the deaths of three emperors, the great empire kept right on ticking.

The thing that struck me most was that there was not a single person, including Vespasian, the last emperor standing, who merited the title of ‘hero’. Everyone involved had sullied their hands and reputation in some way or another. Honor, as an Arthurian knight might define it, was non-existent. But there was no ‘high road’ to be taken to reach the throne, only the low and bloody one.

(My lone complaint about the book is that the maps could have been located nearer the action to which they pertained, and they could have been larger and more detailed.)

[Luke Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

So most history books gloss over 69 AD and go straight from discussing Nero's administration and suicide to Vespasian's rise. There was only a year and a half between these two events, but there were 3 other emperors who fascinatingly rose and fell as emperor during that period.

So this book describes in pretty incredible detail all the elements of the coups and counter-coups that dominated the Roman political landscape for the year and that caused and continued the chaos which settled with Vespasian and the beginning of the Flavian Dynasty.

It's kind of a strange subject to be interested in, but it's actually a pretty dramatic study in what happens when a bunch of people with armies and money all go after the same leadership position during a time of crisis. Today we have primaries to deal with such times, but back in they day they'd just kill each other and the candidate with the toughest spirit and most cunning political skill won.

Check it out, I'd recommend it!

(review refers to the hardcover version)

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

I came very close to quitting this book after the second chapter, but decided to go on reading. Not sure if that was the right decision.

I read this book in hopes of finding an answer to a very basic question. My understanding of the year of four emperors is that it was a turning point of the Roman empire. That's when the rule of Rome passed from one family essentially (however tenuous the family ties were) to someone completely from the outside. How was this possible and why? I still don't know after having read this book.

The author gets so bogged down with minute details that he completely loses control of any narrative. The book is all trees and no forest. There is the name drop of a million various Biggus Dickuses but rarely do they become more than names. And if you remove the names of the various legions (which are repeated ad nauseam) the length of the text could surely be cut in half.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very readable account of the political and military events beginning with the death of Nero and concluding with the arrival of Vespasian. She helpfully notes how she weighs the evidence from the various ancient sources. For the first time I feel I really understand this period (politically and militarily, anyway: this is no social history), and have some context for the social histories I am reading now.

[Steve Wiggins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-balanced and very informative, but it presumes a lot for those who don't specialize in Roman history. Some of the names, varied against monotony, get a little confusing. Over all, very good, but not easy for those of us who specialized in different times and regions. See more at: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.

[Frederick Gault · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a confusing time in Roman History, so I think the author owes it to the reader to provide many maps, and a list of important players in an appendix. I felt the prose was a bit breathless adding to my difficulty in keeping everything straight. In addition, there were some academic politics involved with the interpretations of the classical sources; which was less interesting to the lay reader than the historical narrative.

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting book, which I very much enjoyed reading. I did get confused about which general was on which emperor's side at any given time, though, and would have found a key to the main characters and/or a more comprehensive index very helpful.

If you're interested in this period, I definitely recommend this book.

[Lily P. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book for academics. A lot of time is spent discussing the validity of different sources . . . a lot of time.

The history of 69 AD is complicated. The Roman empire was huge, leadership erratic--SO many conspiracies and power agreements, disagreements, violence, death, betrayals--exhausting.

[Kate Quinn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A terrifically meticulous accounting of a very chaotic period in Roman history. Morgan uses original sources and clear effective writing to turn a very confusing year into a logical sequence of events. I'd never have gotten through writing "Daughters of Rome" without this book.

[Sue · Rating 1 out of 5]

Deadpan.